Reclaiming the Loch Ness Monster from the current tide of debunking and scepticism. If you believe there is something strange in Loch Ness, read on.

Friday, 17 April 2015

Denys Tucker, Nessie and the Powers That Be

Scott Mardis had posted on the Natural History Museum's treatment of Dr. Denys Tucker and his belief in the Loch Ness Monster. You can see his post here.

By coincidence, the Independent newspaper has now published a story on his dismissal based on records released under the Freedom of Information Act. You can read that here. Was he fired because he believed in the Loch Ness Monster or for more mundane reasons? Despite being a qualified zoologist, will sceptics still dismiss his claimed sighting of a large creature in Loch Ness? Of course, they will.

It to be added that Dr. Tucker had a march on the other scientists for he claimed a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster. That account is reproduced below in his letter to the New Scientist dated 27th October 1960. Click on the images and then right click for "View Image" (depending on your browser). Or you can view the original letter and replies from Maurice Burton, Constance Whyte and others at this link.

So you see, when the monster hoves into your view, things change. You are still a scientist, but you are now a scientist who has seen something inexplicable. Perhaps some of the highly trained sceptics who view this article can tell us what this professional marine zoologist saw in Loch Ness that day in 1959. To quote:

"I, a professional marine zoologist of respectable experience, did see a large hump travelling across flat calm water between Inchnacardoch and Glendoe on 22nd March 1959, and do quite unashamedly assert it belonged to an unknown animal."

Dr
Denys Tucker is not a name familiar to us today, but 56 years ago he
was an eminent zoologist at the Natural History Museum whose star was
very much in the ascendancy. Their
youngest researcher by a decade, he was an expert in fish who was
praised by his colleagues - until he claimed to have seen the Loch
Ness monster, leading to him being sacked. Now
new papers released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal details
of his seven-year legal battle to be reinstated, including attempts to
sue the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Dr
Tucker began his academic career after serving in the Second World War
as a pilot, joining the Natural History Museum in 1949 as a scientific
officer in department of zoology. He rose quickly to the rank of senior in 1951, and then principal scientific officer by 1957. A
favourite of senior academics, his bosses once said: 'Most people who
know him would agree that in intelligence he is to be classed with a few
of our most brilliant colleagues.'

However,
all that changed in 1959 when, after a trip to Scotland, he claimed to
have seen an 'unnamed animal' breach the surface of Loch Ness. He
wrote a letter to New Scientist magazine saying that the creature could
only have been an Elasmosaurus, a subspecies of long-necked dinosaurs
that roamed the earth 80 million years ago. Announcing
his findings to the public, he concluded: 'I am quite satisfied that we
have in Loch Ness one of the most exciting and important findings of
British zoology today.'

While
his announcement certainly fired the public imagination, and sparked
three decades of academic research into the loch, his superiors at the
museum were less than impressed. According
to documents seen by The Independent, Dr Tucker was asked whether his
new interest in Nessie was a 'suitable topic' for a lead researcher to
be involved with. Questions
began to be asked about his previous work and his shadowy disciplinary
record, which allegedly included speculating about the sex lives of
colleagues, and waving a pistol at a superior.

The
final straw came in 1960 as Dr. Morrison-Scott was appointed the new
director of the Natural History Museum, and decided that Dr Tucker had
to go. The
sudden dismissal so shocked Dr Tucker that he decided to launch a legal
campaign to be reinstated which included suing the trustees of the
museum in person.

While today
that would mean dragging a bunch of academics into court, back in 1960
it meant launching cases against Archbishop Lord Fisher, then head of
the Church of England, Harry Hylton-Foster, then Speaker of the House of
Commons, two viscounts, and a marquess. This
caused deep consternation in the corridors of power, with officials
keen to shut the case down, worrying that if he won they would be
stopped from firing a civil servant ever again.

Despite
determined efforts by the government to keep senior figures out of the
witness box, the case made it all the way to the Court of Appeal, before
finally being tossed out. Dr
Tucker never held an academic post again, and remained convinced that
the establishment were involved in an attempt to cover up his findings
at Loch Ness. Following
the collapse of his court case he settled in Wimbledon, writing reviews
and papers, before moving to France, where he died in 2009.

44 comments:

Another ghost from the past surfaces. Somehow, the name sounded familiar. Can't remember in what literature I had seen it in, but, a Google search revels that he is mentioned as a real life character in Steve Alten's fictional novel “The Loch” To quote from the novel “ Being associated with Nessie had destroyed many a scientist's career, most notably Dr. Denys Tucker of the British Museum of Natural History. Dr. Tucker had held the post for eleven years, and, at one time had been considered the foremost authority on eels...until he hinted to the press that he was interested in launching an investigation into the Loch Ness Monster. A short time later he was dismissed, his career as a scientist all but over”

From reading the linked newspaper article, I got the impression that he was quite an idiosyncratic sort. As for his sacking, I'd say for both, he was a maverick and bucked the system and promoted the existence of the LNM, something the stuffed shirts of academia could not tolerate.

BTW, the link to the Mardis post on facebook results in This content is currently unavailable. Is it just me, my computer or my location. Is anybody else experiencing this problem?

Yeah, just figured it out. Not much of a social animal on Facebook and only use it when I have to register for something or the other. Got to his page, but to proceed to his discussion group you need to submit a friend request, I believe. Thanks for the article update. :-)

You would really need to see a detailed account from his bosses on why he was sacked as well as the nature of his appeal to the courts to make any kind of judgement. It suits the Nessie believer’s agenda to claim he was sacked for his belief in Nessie, but it looks like it was an accumulation of factors. Waving a gun at your work colleagues would be reason enough in itself, and seems a bigger deal than belief in Nessie, and enough on its own to get anyone sacked. Personally I think his bosses are at fault for not sacking him instantly for such a thing.

I would speculate that if you work for the natural history museum the problem wouldn't be that he believed in Nessie, but that he had drawn conclusions on the issue without doing any research. In science you need to be able to prove your case. It would be seen as very unprofessional and unscientific of him to draw conclusions on Nessie without any research or evidence, so I reckon, on that point, it’s not his belief in Nessie that got him into trouble, but the fact he was a scientist who didn’t apply proper scientific methods. He wasn’t doing his job properly.

Yes, we should know more, but I doubt we will, so I will form my opinion and you will form yours. What I will point out is that Tucker was free to to pursue this interest in the Loch Ness Monster outside of his museum duties.

It seems the Natural History Museum had such a high view of themselves that they had to exert some degree of control over their employees' private lives.

Well then, one could say that his eccentricities and gun brandishing would have been enough for dismissal, but his obsession with Nessie was the last straw and a good excuse, in the minds of his superiors, to finally get rid of him.

It wasn’t a private opinion; he wrote to the New Scientist and stated “I, a professional marine zoologist, did see a large hump travelling across flat calm water on 22 March 1959, and do quite unashamedly assert that it belonged to an unnamed animal. I am quite satisfied that we have in Loch Ness one of the most exciting and important problems in British zoology today.” Thus making it his professional opinion, and reflecting badly on his employer, suggesting that they, like him, might not apply proper scientific methods to their work.I think you will find that any scientific institution like the NHM want to protect their reputation for proper scientific research, that doesn’t make them “full of themselves” more than any other.

It’s because he made the statement pointing out that he was "A professional marine biologist" It says he was making the claim in his professional capacity as chief scientist. In that case it brings the NHM into it, as it’s there he works as the professional. This doesn’t mean it’s also their opinion of course, but doesn't look good for them. He could have stated it was his private, personal opinion which would have allowed the NHM to say it was nothing to do with them as it’s his personal opinion.What makes this even more bizarre is that he was already chastised for producing a flawed paper on migration of eels. Initially it was hailed as ground breaking work, until he admitted he got it wrong by not doing enough research. You would think that have made him more cautious, but no, he then goes on to claim the existence of Nessie with even less research. Again, suggestion very poor judgement to put it mildly.

Ok. Mr Tucker demonstrated a lack of thought and self-control in two clear ways. Firstly he brandished a gun at work. Demented behaviour. Secondly, as Dougie DeWitt below has pointed out, Mr Tucker pronounced which dinosaur the monster had to be, based on what? I would suggest a childlike desire and not much more. How could he have seen enough of the specimen to make such a call?

I would suggest he was a highly excitable man who really wanted to believe in Nessie. This clouded his judgment. Did he see anything at all? Did he get worked up about a common object like a wave? Who knows. But it was right to dismiss him as an employee, and it's right to dismiss his convenient "sighting".

GS might be using a strong tone but the evidence suggests that the picture he paints of Tucker is pretty accurate. A loose cannon and a poor witness. Signs of paranoia too. An institution such as London's Natural History Museum cannot be expected to put up with such awful publicity.

Great article. I remember reading about Denys Tucker many years ago in one or another of my Loch Ness book collection and it's great many years later to read more information about his dismissal. I don't remember reading previously that he claimed a sighting and I'm not sure if I have forgotten or whether it was previously published? I might have a root through my books and see if I can find mention of it.

The most enlightening thing to arise from this particular article is Geordie's belief in Fairies which really surprises me as I would find it easier to believe a large animal in Loch Ness than the existence of magical creatures but each to their own.

I to was certain I had come across the name somewhere in association with the LNM mystery When I Googled the name I learned that there is a brief mention of Tucker in Henry H. Bauer's “The Enigma of Loch Ness”. Maybe that's where you read about him. Funny how one forgets certain individuals, only to have them ring a bell when you see them in print much later.

Dawesy mate, you not seen the Cottingley fairies photos? They are at least as convincing as any Loch Ness Monster photo out there. Furthermore, I have heard there is a definitively clear film of fairies hidden in a bank vault. One day someone is sure to find it!

When I read for my law degree I recall reading of the case of Tucker v Trustees of Natural History Museum,it simply said that a museum professor held an office that could be terminated at pleasure (less employment rights then) as far as I recall Nessie was not mentioned but no doubt someone could find the full report of the judgment